Talk:Dungeon Siege history
While I enjoy a novel read or two, this article unfortunately is written from a non-fiction perspective with fiction thrown in to join the dots where it was seen fit (Which, for a fictional read, is extremely good). It needs to be completely re-written, divided into seperate sections for each age and subsequently broken down. Therefore, unless someone else wants to work on it, it's now at the top of my list. Probably work on it over the weekend. Sadowson (talk) 04:03, July 28, 2016 (UTC) Aw, man. There goes all my hard work on the history of the first game. ~~your favorite anon I'm afraid I cannot sort out official lore from fan-created parts, if any— though the page claims it is all from GPG. What exactly do you mean by non-fiction, because I believe wikia fully condones use of in-universe perspective writing (different from wikipedia which is strictly encyclopedic). Also it sounds like our dynamic friend 24.94.29.252 is rather invested in this...? --Tristanzz (talk) 04:51, July 28, 2016 (UTC) Wait, YOUR LoneKnight? Well that throws me. I've read this article multiple times since it first came out. I'm so confused as to why you've never bothered making a wikia account - but since it's not the rules, I will not enforce it. First and foremost, it IS a great piece of writing. Of that, I am NOT denying. However, there are a few minor errors in the writing - most of which are just gramatical errors: Basically all of the introduction needs to be reformatted, as it's essentially a quote by an in-universe character. Chapter 2: Imperial Formations of the Ancient World. "The Empire of Stars was formed untold years ago, but an exact date of its formation is unknown. Its approximate foundation time, in accordance with other ancient empires, is unknown, though it is believed that most, if not all of the ancient empires formed around the same time." The bolded line is basically a repeat. It's that sort of thing that I was talking about tiding up. Removing your countless hours of work? Yea, that was very much an overexaggeration on my part. There also needs to be more citations referencing the in-universe books - as much information on the storyline outside of the games actually comes from these books. Either you can citate or I can... I don't really mind cuz it's a freakin long as task but I would regard this particular page to be as important as the main opening page on the wikia. And lastly... It's too long - WHICH FOR A LOREWHORE LIKE ME THAT ISNT BAD - but it is too long for someone who comes onto the wikia and wants a brief history of everything. I find that http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Era is a perfect example of how a history page is laid out. A basic overview of each of the significant events (Or Ages) which can be expanded into a more indepth explanation on their own pages. It reduces clutter and makes for easier reading. So in this case, rather than REMOVING your amazing writing entirely, each segment - or chapter - would be given it's own page with references, citations and links. Additionally, all of Dungeon Siege 3 canon needs to be included. Personally? I HATE the DS3 storyline. To me it was total garbage and was just so bad in comparison to the previous two titles with plothole after plothole. (And the gameplay and the everything else... I won't go there in this talkpage) So, I fully take back what I said about a full rewrite and deleting your stuff. That was wrong of me and I apologise. (I'll explain Wikia rules on non-fiction + fiction plus perspectives in my next post. I have a habit of writing waaaaay too much) Sadowson (talk) 09:49, July 28, 2016 (UTC) Okay, now in regards to wikia rules on fiction, non fiction and perspectives and all that stuff. Hopefully I can make it clear; 1. When writing an article, it should be written from a neutral, formal perspective. This means that you cannot take a bias on events or perspectives that have occured. Pathetic-example-i-wrote-in-two-mins: The 10th Legion in all it's mightyness conquered Ehb and subjugated the Droog because the droog are stupid and useless at fighting and if you disagree then your wrong. This is wrong because the author has unfairly uplifted the 10th Legion in their own opinion and was basically racist about the Droog. The article should be written thusly: The 10th Legion conquered Ehb and subjugated the Droog with ease due to their superior weaponry and numbers. Note: I am aware that that event never happened. ITS AN EXAMPLE. 2. HOWEVER, the above rules does NOT apply when copying text from an in-universe source. In-game books are a prime example of this. Since anyone with basic writing skills can publish a book, there's nothing in-game to stop someone idiot from writing from his own perspective. In this case, the wikia articles author should acknowledge that the perspective of the in-game book writer was writing from a bias perspective and the article should note this. 3. Conflicting Information. Anyone who's edited a wikia based on past events in games (Elder Scrolls anyone?) will come across events that took place in the past where there is conflicting information (So one person writes a book saying the 10th Legion was really the only legion in the empire of stars and another person says that there were actually more than one legion). In this case, it's up to the author of the article to gather all the evidence and make the best summary that they can. Acknowledging the conflicting evidence here is a really good idea. A prime example of poor writing where basically every rule has been broken and the formatting is... concerning is: http://dungeonsiege.wikia.com/wiki/Character_Attributes_and_Skills?diff=next&oldid=3226 Compare THAT with how it is now... Basically all of the information on that page now is taken DIRECTLY from the strategy guide for Dungeon Siege I which was written by GPG. I hope that clears up the fictional - non-fictional question you had. That being said, you have all done just fine so far and I have no real qualms. Unless that was you LoneKnight, with the old page. In which case I have some BIG qualms... Sadowson (talk) 10:09, July 28, 2016 (UTC) No sir, I am not Lone Knight. I wouldn't have edited this page so much had the Knight not messed up so badly on the sections covered by the first game. There were lots of plot and spelling errors. I made the DS1 section (Chapters 8-10, I think) into what it is now. The racism against the Droog is a part of the game itself; it's one of the reasons why they allied with the Seck. I see parallels between them and the Native Americans: tribes of warrior-clans who were pushed off their land into the desert by a more powerful, civilized entity, and in this world, they have the capacity for a meaningful revenge and retaliation. Of course, the Droog warband easily fell, due to the tactics and discipline of Lady Montbarron's adventurers/the 10th Legion, as can be played out in-game. Legion Calling the Utraean Peninsula adventurers 10th-legionaires is stretching it. On the other hand they are explicitly "Marked by Azunai," "Blessed of Azunai," or whatever; as such they are able to perceive Azunite shrines. There is something about the shrines being invisible to others, like they are invisible in single player. I think. That is the basis of any kind of background for the MP adventurers. The document doesn't say anything about this. There's no evidence that the hero of Arhok was recruited into the 10th legion (Utraean Isles section). Meanwhile there is explicit evidence that the hero has a hereditary job as defender of Arhok. Parents have names / should be mentioned. Again the document doesn't say anything about it. The sections on UP + LoA is a good starting place for cleanup and expansion if you still have your sights set on this page. Saying "the Legion did this" or "the Legion went to that" is just awkward.--Tristanzz (talk) 14:48, August 14, 2016 (UTC) *One of the reasons I credited the 10th Legion was to cover as much of the game map as possible; it would be easier to split up a division of Legionnaires to explore all the sidepaths than to tell the tales of individual adventurers. It also makes more sense in regards to constant player deaths in the harder parts of the game; it breaks immersion to tell about constant respawns-as-ghost and Res. Shrine trips. Just my 2 cents on my history. ~ the Templar of St. Luke I think this article needs some serious revision now... The ressurection shrines are actually covered by in-game provided lore... Azunite Lorebook, found in Ulora's inventory. "It is believed that rare offspring of devout Azunite worshippers are 'Marked with fire' in secret ceremonies. Those children have been known to receive mortal wounds only to be resurrected by simple passage beneath the sacred shield." I suspect that it's a place where GPG found a plothole and covered it up with this. Since the players in multiplayer are able to use the shrines, it therefore makes sense that they are the ones marked with fire. Legionaaires going out to find the various townstones and dying on the way doesn't make any sense to me considering the state of the legion in the Utraean Peninsula - which I effectively refer to as the legion remnant since their getting screwed over at the time and there's no real reference to them being 10th Legionaaires. Sadowson (talk) 00:04, August 15, 2016 (UTC) Funny thing I discovered... Dungeon Siege I and it's expansion take place BEFORE the first cataclysm. I really need to completely overhaul this history page. Theres some glaring errors all through it, most of it starting in Chapter 3. I'm going to set it out similar to how the Elder Scrolls history is set out with it being divided into the different eras. Sadowson (talk) 09:57, September 6, 2016 (UTC) : That the game takes place before the First Cataclysm is quite a revelation, which brings up more questions. How long was the War of Legions? How much time was there between the end of that war and the rise of Zaramoth? Just how long did Zaramoth reign before the 1st Cataclysm? If DS1 occurred before the First Cataclysm, then why is Azunai already a well-established saint? I'm going to need some time to get used to this, if it's true. Nonetheless, I've never played DS2 and experienced its view on history, so I'll defer to you on this. If you've played Dungeon Siege 2, then to a certain extent it makes sense. DS2 had far more lore explained in it within 30mins than DS1 did across the entire game. The biggest problem I am having in sorting this out is the timegap between DS1 and DS3. By DS3, it's been roughly four generations, or about 100-150 years. They've advanced warfare considerably by this time and now have rifles and cannon, a far cry from the legions original swords and bows. It's made abundantly clear in DS2 that it takes place AFTER the events of DS1 + Expansion. If this is true, then that would mean the Second Age (Time between first and second catacylsm) was less than 200 years long. Which is SHORT AS HELL in a timeline of several thousand years. DS2 also makes it abundantly clear that the first catacylsm took place *several* hundred years prior, but it doesn't say just how long. Herein lies the problem. Remove DS3 from the timeline, DS1 + DS2 fit beautifully. Keep it in and suddenly western Aranna (Lescanza, Ehb) is stuck out of logical time sync with the rest of the universe. Either way, we are stuck with keeping it in... From what I can deduce, the Azunite religion has only been around in Ehb for a short while and DS1 takes place a VERY short time before the first cataclysm. From a timewise and logical perspective (IGNORING PLOTHOLES), the Azunite religion makes sense. There's no mention of Xeria (Big name in background lore in DS2), a lesser "goddess". And the religion is based more around a karma style belief than really worshipping Azunai himself. Additionally, Azunais shield on his ressurection shrines in DS1 is a massive difference from the shield he bears in cutscenes in DS2 (Again, Plotholes... IGNORE THEM) which would suggest that he didn't have the Agallan Shield yet during the DS1 period. What I HAVE managed to sort out is that the War Of Legions only truly finished some 100 years prior to the start of DS1. Everyone makes it out to be thousands of years ago, but ingame books suggest that it really wasnt all that long ago. Everyone seems to suggest that Zaramoth has basically been in charge for centuries. Well, true and not true. He's ruled Southeast Aranna for a few centuries sure, but he didn't claim the rest of the Empire of Stars until only a short while ago by DS1 standards (About 100+ years or so). Conclusion? Zaramoth is well and truly alive during DS1. So is Azunai. Lore also clearly and happily indicates that Zaramoths mages put a big 'ol cap on the River of Souls to prevent anyone bar him and his inner circle from using magic, however they clearly never had control of Ehb, or anything nearly west of Lescanza so there's no reason why they could cap the river from that side (Which is why Ehb, the Utraean Peninsula and the Utraean Isle still have magic) I think I have alot to sort out... Sadowson (talk) 00:47, September 7, 2016 (UTC) Just had a lovely chat with King Konreid in the Castle Ehb Dungeons. The Seck were imprisoned about 300 years prior to Dungeon Siege I... but I've gotten myself into a bind with the timeline... AGAIN... Sadowson (talk) 02:54, September 12, 2016 (UTC) Perhaps the loss of his Seck forces, and the resulting gaps in security, is what allowed Zaramoth to even be approached by rebel forces? -Templar of St. Luke Zaramoth had thirteen legions added to his already sizeable army. I find it... unusual... that he'd have gaps in security. Still, anythings possible in a world of magic... Sadowson (talk) 03:18, September 12, 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to figure out which year DSI takes place in. I've seen someone mention somewhere that it takes place in 1144... But I find that unlikely as it would make Ibsen Yamas about 200 years old. Anyone else able to find something to help me with that? Sadowson (talk) 12:59, September 13, 2016 (UTC)